# von Mises Institute article on SCHIPS



## Glacierman (Nov 16, 2006)

Some good reading here, from a different POV than we are used to seeing:

*How Can You Oppose Health Care for Children?*

By Gary Galles

Congress has again passed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), only to have it vetoed again. That has given its backers yet another chance to proclaim how much they care for children and rehash attacks against President Bush, as when Lois Capps (D-CA) called it "denying vital healthcare to some of the most vulnerable in our society," and promise to try again next year. Unfortunately, however, their assertions are less than convincing.

Proponents begin by criticizing Bush's veto because of his previous fiscal profligacy. So critics attack him for spending too much (for policies they usually would spend even more on), then use that to criticize him for spending too little. Unfortunately, while his administration certainly can be criticized for its rapid growth in spending, that is not an argument for him to continue that pattern.

Proponents then cite widespread endorsements by states, medical providers and families who would directly benefit to demonstrate SCHIP's value. But that its beneficiaries like the idea says nothing about whether those subsidies, necessarily at others' expense, are good policy. I would like to take your money for myself, but that is robbery, and robbery doesn't become good policy just because the robbers like the results.

click here for the rest of the article.


----------



## billybarue (Mar 20, 2006)

Von Mises, Frederick Hayek, and the rest of the "Austrian school" of economics is something I haven't looked at in quite awhile. Ask two economist something and you'll get 3 answers. I recall it to be very practical and emphasizing controlled spending and small government. Cited to a great extent in "Public Choice theory and economics" which dominated one of the schools I went to (and studied economics). A school of thought studying (among other things) how political decision making is often contrary to the overall public desires.

SCHIP may look good and feel good to the politicians, but they largely refuse to recognize the result of what the legislation actually means, and what the true results and costs might be. As the article states, "the Scrooge-versus-Tiny-Tim imagery is neither accurate nor complete." But, those that support the bill try desperately to paint the opposition as nothing but a bunch of "Scrooges" who's sole intent is to deny children (really all of us) of "universal health care".


----------



## Glacierman (Nov 16, 2006)

billybarue said:


> .... But, those that support the bill try desperately to paint the opposition as nothing but a bunch of "Scrooges" who's sole intent is to deny children (really all of us) of "universal health care".


I wish they'd explain to me in a meaningful manner why "universal health care" is a desirable thing, especially when what they mean is some government-run thing that you are required to participate in. This is a guaranteed disaster.

Hell's bells, I don't even buy into the "medical insurance is necessary" mindset. My wife passed on the insurance her employer offers as being too bloody expensive with little/no real benefit to us. Oh, it transfers our wealth to the insurance company quite efficiently, but that is about it.


----------



## glking (Jul 20, 2007)

It would bring the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the compassion of the Postal Service to healthcare. What could be better?


----------

